In a recent discourse regarding Romans 14 and Deuteronomy 14, Brother Todd Clippard argued that the consumption of fermented wine is a matter of “private scruple”—a liberty authorized by God, provided it does not cause a brother to stumble. While his article presented a technical defense using Hebrew lexicons (HALOT; TWOT) and New Testament Greek, it ultimately fails to grasp a wholesome Philosophy of God and the consistent internal logic of Scripture.

To truly understand the biblical position on alcohol, we must look past a possible “permission of the letter” and see the protection of the Spirit. When we analyze the character of God, the nature of the ancient world, and the biological reality of man, the defense of “moderate drinking” is revealed to be a dangerous theological compromise. A lexicon that says a word can mean “intoxicating” is not a theological endorsement of its use.

I. The Royal Priesthood

The author of the pro-moderation defense points to Leviticus 10:9, arguing that the prohibition of wine for priests was “specific to the time they served in the tabernacle,” not a universal ban. This is a shallow hermeneutic that ignores the transition from the Old Covenant to the New.

Under the Old Covenant, the priest was only “on duty” during specific rotations. However, the New Testament declares that Christians are a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9) and that our bodies are the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19). We do not rotate in and out of service; we are called to present our members as a “living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1) at all times.

If the shadow (the Levitical priest) was required to be stone-cold sober to “distinguish between holy and unholy” (Leviticus 10:10), how much more is the reality (the Christian priest) required to maintain total sobriety while offering a lifelong sacrifice? To argue that we can drink “off duty” is to suggest there is a moment in the Christian life where we are not standing in the presence of God.

II. No Degrees of Drunkenness

Modern defenders of alcohol often attempt to navigate “degrees of drunkenness,” suggesting that one can be “under the influence” without being “drunk.” But God does not deal in degrees of sobriety. God does not deal in degrees of any sin!

The New Testament command is nepho (1 Peter 5:8)—to be sober, calm, and collected. It is a binary state: you are either sober or you are not. Alcohol, by its very medical definition, is a depressant that begins to impair judgment from the very first sip.

 We are commanded to be “filled with the Spirit” rather than wine (Ephesians 5:18). These are presented as mutually exclusive influences. One does not argue for “degrees of honesty” or “degrees of adultery.” Likewise, God demands total sobriety because the “adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion” (1 Peter 5:8). A lion does not wait for you to be “fully drunk”; he only needs you to be “slightly impaired.” One sip can cause one slip- and certain ruin is sure.

III. The Fallacy of Divided Law

The pro-moderation argument suggests that because God “authorized” the purchase of yayin (wine) and shekar (strong drink) in Deuteronomy 14:26, He issued a moral endorsement. This ignores the unified Law of Holiness. God does not have two characters—one that calls alcohol a “mocker” (Proverbs 20:1) and another that commands/commends its use.

The “wine” that makes the heart glad is the blessing of the harvest (Psalm 104). To suggest that God “authorized” a substance that He elsewhere calls a “stinging serpent” (Proverbs 23:32) is to suggest God is the author of confusion. A Holy Father does not provide the authorized path to a shameful end!

IV. The Logic of Divine Foreknowledge

Perhaps the most profound argument is the Nature of God as Creator. I have talked with a trusted friend over the past couple months trying to get this theory into words that made sense. This topic is very close to my heart. I have lived the life of an addict. I have lost people I knew and loved to addiction. So, I wanted to develop my thoughts about how this relates to God, and this is what I have settled on.

 God knows, with divine certainty, who among us possesses a biological/ psychological susceptibility to addiction. If God “authorized” alcohol, He would be knowingly authorizing a biological trap. He would be setting one up for “Russian Roulette,” all the while knowing the coming destruction.

A Father who loves His children does not authorize a sip that He knows will lead to a shipwreck.  To suggest God gives permission for a substance that leads to the “woe” and “redness of eyes” described in Proverbs (23:29-35) is to suggest God provides the very stumbling block He warns us to avoid!

I cannot stomach, nor stand to allow men to hang my Holy and Just God on the horns of that dilemma- promoting this errant idea of authorized “moderate consumption.”

V. Preservation vs. Fermentation

We must address the “equivalence” error. Ancient yayin was a generic term, often referring to the juice of the grape. Furthermore, historical records confirm that ancient wine was almost universally diluted with water (Homer, Pliny, and various Talmudic sources report often 3:1 or higher, some as much as 20:1). To drink wine “straight” (undiluted) was considered a mark of “Scythian” (barbarian) behavior.

To equate the “wine” of the Bible—a water purifier—with a modern 12% ABV bottle of chardonnay is intellectually dishonest. Modern alcohol is a concentrated intoxicant that God never authorized in any text.

The Holy Hedge

We must view the position of Todd Clippard with profound concern. To teach that alcohol is a “matter of conscience” is to remove the hedge of protection God has placed around His people.

1. It Mocks the Weak: It tells the man struggling with the urge to drink that his struggle is a “private scruple” rather than a response to a forbidden substance.
2. It Clouds the Influence: It suggests that an “Instructional Leader” can hold a glass in one hand and the Bible in the other without contradiction.
3. It Ignores the Spirit of the Law: The “Law of the Spirit of Life” (Romans 8:2) moves us away from things that intoxicate the mind and toward sober-mindedness (sophron- 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:5).

The position that alcohol is authorized for the Christian is a legless one. It ignores the Royal Priesthood—demanding total sobriety for a lifelong sacrifice. It ignores the Biology of Man—which God designed and protects. And it ignores the Character of God—who does not deal in degrees of impairment.

We must reject the “Clippard compromise.” God does not authorize the lottery of addiction. He authorizes sobriety. He does not condone the mocker; He condones the Fruit of the Spirit, of which temperance (self-control) is a cornerstone. Let us stand on the wholesome philosophy that our God is a Protector, not a Tempter, and that His priests must remain vigilant and sober until the day He returns.

We at the Eastside congregation love Todd, and we love the souls on whom he has an influence. Todd held a meeting at Eastside several years ago. Our members know him and follow him on social media. That being the case, I felt it necessary to meet his new doctrine head on to protect our people. We love Christ and His truth above all- so we stand against any teaching which permits the moderate use of alcohol.

If we can help you in your walk with God, do not hesitate to reach out. God loves you and we do too.